This is excellent, and it is nice to see a strong doctrinal affirmation without the all too common accompanying attacks on sedevacantism or sedevacantists, as if we were the problem in the Church.

No doubt the so-called Resistance will tell us why this declaration is not sufficient for something or other, but it will certainly reassure a lot of the faithful.

There is a lot of formatting in the original, so it is better to click on the link above and read it there.

Quote:

Superior General'sLetter to Friends & Benefactors#80, March 2013

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

It has been quite a long time now that this letter has kept you waiting, and it is with joy, in this Easter season, that we would like to take our bearings and to present a few reflections on the situation of the Church.

As you know, the Society found itself in a delicate position during most of the year 2012, following the final approach of Benedict XVI in attempting to normalize our situation.

The difficulties resulted, on the one hand, from requirements that accompanied the Roman proposal - to which we could not and still cannot subscribe - and, on the other hand, from a lack of clarity on the part of the Holy See that did not allow us to know precisely the will of the Holy Father or what he was ready to concede to us. The trouble caused by these uncertainties vanished as of June 13, 2012, with a clear confirmation, on the 30th of the same month, by a letter from Benedict XVI himself clearly and unambiguously spelling out the conditions that were being imposed on us for a canonical normalization.

These conditions are of a doctrinal nature; they entail the total acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and of the Mass of Paul VI. And so, as Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, wrote in a letter addressed to the members of the Society of St. Pius X at the end of last year, on the doctrinal level we are still at the point where we started out in the 1970’s. Unfortunately we can only agree with this observation by the Roman authorities and acknowledge the current relevance of the analysis by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of our Society, which was unwavering in the decades following the Council, until his death. His very accurate insight, which is at the same time theological and practical, is still valid today, fifty years after the start of the Council.

We would like to recall this analysis, which the Society of St. Pius X has always made its own and which remains the guiding principle of its doctrinal position and of its activity: while recognizing that the crisis that is jolting the Church has external causes also, the Council itself has been the chief agent in her self-destruction.

At the conclusion of the Council, in a letter to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani dated December 20, 1966, Arcbhishop Lefebvre explained the havoc caused by the Council throughout the Church. I cited it already in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 68, dated September 29, 2005. It is useful to reread several excerpts from it today.

Whereas the Council was preparing to be a shining cloud [i.e., to proclaim the truth clearly] in today’s world, if it had only used the prepared schemas that contained a solemn profession of sure doctrine with regard to modern problems, one can and unfortunately must affirm:

that, [almost universally], when the Council innovated, it shook the certitude of the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as belonging definitively to the treasure of Tradition.

Whether it be the transmission of the bishops’ jurisdiction, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last things, etc.: on all these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous Conciliar documents on these truths henceforth allow doubts.

The consequences have been rapidly drawn and applied to the life of the Church:

Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations.

Doubts about the necessity and the nature of the ‘conversion’ of every soul lead to the disappearance of religious vocations, the ruin of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the futility of the missions.

Doubts about the legitimacy of authority and the duty of obedience provoked by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience, and of freedom shake all societies starting with the Church, religious societies, the dioceses, civil society, and the family.

The normal result of pride is the burgeoning of the concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. Perhaps one of the most frightful observations to be made about our epoch is to note to what a level of moral degradation most Catholic publications have descended. They speak without the least reticence about sexuality, birth control by any means, the legitimacy of divorce, about co-education, dating, dances as a necessary part of Christian education, about priestly celibacy, etc.

Doubts about the necessity of grace in order to be saved provoke the undervaluing of baptism and its postponement, and the abandonment of the sacrament of penance. Moreover, this especially involves an attitude of priests and not of the faithful. The same goes for the Real Presence: it is the priests who act as if they no longer believed by hiding the Sacred Host, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Blessed Sacrament and all the ceremonies in Its honor.

Doubts about the necessity of the Church as the unique source of salvation and about the Catholic Church as the only true religion originating in the Declarations on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty, destroy the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. Indeed, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary “Magistra Veritatis” [“Mistress of Truth”].

Compelled by the facts, it is necessary to conclude that the Council has favored, inconceivably, the diffusion of liberal errors. Faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline have been shaken to their foundations according to the predictions of all the popes.

The destruction of the Church is rapidly advancing. By an exaggerated authority given to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself ineffectual. In a single year how many painful examples of this have we witnessed! Still, the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church.

Let the Holy Father surround himself with vigorous defenders of the Faith; let him appoint them in the important dioceses. Let him deign, by important documents, to proclaim truth, pursue error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of questioning the pastoral guidelines of the Council.

May the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to uphold faith and morals, each in his respective diocese, as befits every good pastor; to support the courageous bishops, encouraging them to reform their seminaries and to restore studies according to St. Thomas; to encourage the general superiors to uphold in the novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of Christian asceticism, especially obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a doctrinally sound Catholic press, associations of Catholic families; and, finally, to reprimand the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclical letters, mandates, and letters to bishops.

Undoubtedly, it is bold of me to express myself in this way! But it is from a burning love that I write these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, love of the Church and of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.

On November 21, 1974, after the apostolic visitation of the seminary in Econe, Archbishop Lefebvre deemed it necessary to summarize his position in the famous declaration that would result, several months later in the unjust canonical suppression of the Society of St. Pius X, which our founder and his successors have always considered null and void. This document, which is of capital importance, opened with this profession of faith, which is that of all the members of the Society:

We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, [school]mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which manifested itself clearly during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

Indeed, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in catechetics: an education deriving from liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.”

And this declaration concluded with these lines:

The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reform.

That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Supreme Pontiff, and to future generations.

In 1983, recalling the meaning of the fight for Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre sent an Episcopal Manifesto, co-signed by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, to John Paul II, in which he denounced, once again, the havoc caused by the post-conciliar reforms and the disastrous spirit that spread everywhere. He underscored, in particular, the following points on the subject of false ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty, papal power and the New Mass.

False Ecumenism

This ecumenism is likewise contrary to the teachings of Pius XI in the Encyclical Mortalium animos. Concerning this point it is timely to expose and reject a certain false opinion which is at the origin of this problem and of this complex movement by the means of which non-Catholics strive to bring about a union of Christian churches. Those who adhere to this opinion constantly cite these words of Christ: “That they all may be one . . . and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (Jn. 17:21 and 10:16), and they claim that by these words Christ expresses a desire or a prayer which has never been realized. In fact, they claim that the unity of faith and of government, which is one of the marks of the true Church of Christ, until now has never existed in practice and today does not exist.

This ecumenism condemned by Catholic morality and law, now goes so far as to permit the reception of the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction from “non-Catholic ministers” (canon 844, CIC 1983), and encourages ‘ecumenical hospitality’ by authorizing Catholic ministers to give the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholics….

Collegiality

The doctrine, already insinuated by the document Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, is taken up again explicitly by the new Code of Canon Law (can. 336). According to this doctrine, the College of Bishops united with the Pope, also possesses supreme authority in the Church, in a habitual and constant manner.

This doctrine of a twofold supreme authority is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Magisterium of the Church, especially in Vatican Council I (Denzinger 3055), and in the Encyclical of Leo XIII, Satis cognitum. The Pope alone has this supreme authority which he can communicate, in the measure which he judges expedient and in extraordinary circumstances.

This grave error brings with it the democratic orientation of the Church, with the power residing in the “People of God” as it is defined in the new Code. This Jansenist error is condemned by the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI (Denzinger 2602)….

Religious liberty

The Declaration Dignitatis humanae of Vatican Council II affirms the existence of a false natural human right in religious matters, contrary to the papal teachings which repudiate such a blasphemy.

Thus Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta cura and in the Syllabus, Leo XIII in his Encyclicals Libertas praestantissimum and Immortale Dei, Pius XII in his allocution Ci Riesce to the Italian Catholic jurists, deny that reason and revelation provide any basis for a right of this sort.

Vatican II believes and professes, universally, that “The Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own Truth.” This is formally opposed to the teaching of Pius VI against the Jansenists of the Council of Pistoia (Denzinger 2604). The Second Vatican Council thus absurdly ends up affirming the right not to adhere to, and not to follow the Truth, in order to oblige civil governments to cease discriminating for religious motives, thus establishing a juridical equality between false religions and the true one….

The consequences of the recognition by the Council of this false human right destroy the foundations of the social reign of Our Lord. They undermine the authority and power of the Church in its mission to cause Our Lord to reign in souls and in hearts, for the Church must combat the satanic forces which subjugate souls. The missionary spirit will be accused of exaggerated proselytism.

The neutrality of States in religious matters is injurious for Our Lord and His Church, in the case of a State with a Catholic majority.

Papal power

Certainly the authority of the Pope in the Church is a supreme authority, but it cannot be absolute and unlimited, since it is subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium (Denzinger 3116).

The authority of the Pope is subordinate to and limited by the end for which this authority was given to him. This end is clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican Council I (Denzinger 3070). It would be an intolerable abuse of power to modify the constitution of the Church and to claim to appeal to human rights against the Divine Right, as in religious liberty, as in the Eucharistic hospitality that is authorized in the new Canon Law, as in the assertion of two supreme authorities in the Church.

It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and every faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a misunderstanding and no one is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God (Denzinger 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 33, a. 4).

These statements are elementary principles of morality. They regulate the relations of subjects with all legitimate authorities.

Moreover this resistance is corroborated by the fact that henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who commit veritable sacrileges are in no way troubled. That is the logic of an abuse of authority.

The New Mass

Contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent in Session XXII, contrary to the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest, now become a simple presider, has been diminished. The importance of the Liturgy of the Word has been exaggerated, and the importance of the propitiatory Sacrifice has been diminished. The meal of the community has been exalted and the Mass has been laicized, to the detriment of the respect and the faith in the Real Presence by transubstantiation.

By the suppression of the sacred language, the rites have been infinitely multiplied. They have been profaned by worldly and pagan additions. False translations have been propagated to the detriment of the true faith and the true piety of the faithful.

In 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre vehemently protested the inter-religious meeting at Assisi, which was an unprecedented scandal in the Catholic Church, and above all a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments: “You shall adore the one God alone,” in which the Vicar of Christ publicly invited the representatives of all religions to call upon their false gods. Our founder later said that he regarded that event, which was intolerable to anyone with a Catholic heart, as one of the signs that he had asked for from Heaven so as to be able to go ahead and consecrate bishops.

In the Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 40 dated February 2, 1991, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the second Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, took up the question in its entirety and restated the Catholic position in a short compendium of contemporary errors against the faith. And we asked several confreres to summarize in a sort of vademecum [manual] all of these points in various works that have been published since, including the remarkable The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church by Fr. Matthias Gaudron (Angelus Press).

Today, along the same lines, we can only repeat what Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Schmidberger in turn declared. All the errors that they denounced, we denounce. We beg Heaven and the authorities of the Church, in particular the new Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, not to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine, the revealed deposit of the faith, without which no one can be saved, no one can please God.

What good is it to devote oneself to serving people if one hides from them what is essential, the purpose and the meaning of their life, and the seriousness of sin that turns them away from it? Works of charity done for the poor, the needy, the infirm, and the sick have always been a true concern for the Church, and we must not excuse ourselves from it, but if it becomes merely man-centered philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying out her mission, she is no longer leading souls to God, which can really be done only by supernatural means: faith, hope, charity and grace. And therefore by denouncing anything that is opposed to them: errors against faith and morality. Because if people sin, for want of that denunciation, they are damned for eternity. The Church’s reason for being is to save them and to help them avoid the misfortune of their eternal perdition.

Now obviously that could not possibly please the world, which then turns against the Church, often violently, as history shows us.

Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged. The words of Archbishop Lefebvre take on a prophetic tone. It has all come to pass, and it all continues for the greater misfortune of souls who no longer hear from their pastors the message of salvation.

Without becoming upset over the duration of this terrible crisis or over the number of prelates and bishops who pursue the self-destruction of the Church, as Paul VI acknowledged, we continue, to the extent of our abilities, to proclaim that the Church can change neither her dogmas nor her morality. For no one can meddle with these venerable institutions without provoking a genuine disaster. Although some accidental modifications pertaining to the external form must be made - as it happens in all human institutions - in no case can they be made contrary to the principles that have guided the Church in all the preceding centuries.The consecration to St. Joseph, which the General Chapter decided on in July 2012, is taking place right at this decisive moment. Why St. Joseph? Because he is the Patron of the Catholic Church. He continues to carry out for the Mystical Body the role that God the Father had entrusted to him with regard to His Divine Son. Since Christ is the Head of the Church, Head of the Mystical Body, it follows that he who was in charge of protecting the Messiah, the Son of God made man, now finds his mission extended to the entire Mystical Body.

Just as his role was very discreet and for the most part hidden - while being perfectly effective - so too this role of protector - which is quite effective with regard to the Church also - is carried out today with great discretion. Only over the course of the centuries was devotion to St. Joseph manifested more and more clearly. One of the greatest saints, one of the most discreet. Following Pius IX, who declared him Patron of the entire Church, following Leo XIII who confirmed this role and introduced the magnificent Prayer to St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church - which we recite every day in the Society - and following St. Pius X, who had a very special devotion to St. Joseph, whose name he bore, we want to adopt as our own, in this tragic moment in the history of the Church, this devotion and his patronage.

Dear friends and benefactors of the Society of St. Pius X, I bless you with all my heart, while expressing my gratitude to you for your prayers and your generosity for the benefit of the work of restoring the Church that Archbishop Lefebvre undertook. Moreover I ask St. Joseph to obtain for you the divine graces that your families need in order to remain faithful to Catholic Tradition.

+ Bernard Fellay

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:19 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Doesn't this seem to contradict the "doctrinal preamble" that was recently published? If so, then my question is, what does Bishop Fellay truly believe? Does he really oppose Vatican II or can he support Vatican II in the light of tradition? He seems to have gone from one extreme to the other and back all within about a year's time. So I'm not sure at all this will reassure many of the faithful who and part of "the resistance".

As for me, I'm not really involved with the SSPX anyway, but I'm left wondering why I should believe Bishop Fellay now rather than when he sent Rome a document that said he didn't really have much opposition to Vatican II, just opposition to how it is interpreted.

Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:27 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

TKGS,

I think the Preamble represents the most ambiguous and compromising text that Bishop Fellay could subscribe to, when under intense pressure from the man he believes to be the Vicar of Christ, in order to aid the latter in damping down opposition from the vehement devotees of Vatican II in order to put the canonical issues with the SSPX away so that it can become the pope's spearpoint in restoring the Church.

Yes, I don't believe any of it either, but he did, and that's why he was prepared to sign such a text.

The latest Letter, on the other hand, is pretty garden-variety Bishop Fellay and could have been published by him at any point from 1991 to a couple of years ago. There were entire threads on IA and elsewhere resurrecting old letters and conferences of Bishop Fellay's in order to display the change in his rhetoric during the Romanced-by-Ratzinger period.

So I have no trouble at all in deciding which Bishop Fellay is the real one.

That doesn't alter the fact that if the circumstances were repeated, there is no guarantee that the same man would not make the same mistake, but he has said many times since that he was "deceived" so it does seem unlikely, don't you think? He has also taken to quoting Our Lady of La Salette...

The "Resistance" is resisting a phantom menace. There's no deal and no prospect of one. (Does anybody seriously think that Bergoglio is interested in the SSPX, or indeed trads generally? I think he yawns every time tradition is mentioned.)

The line I usually get in conversation with people who keep up with campaign of the "Resistance" is that even if there's no deal, there is an evident softening of the Fraternity's rhetoric against V2 etc., preparing the Fraternity for another attempt later. Two comments: One, if this is their concern, why are they not welcoming texts such as the above? Two, most, if not all of the evidence of liberalism within the SSPX is not of a new kind. That kind of evidence has always been there, precisely because the SSPX is not sedevacantist and therefore consitutes a "broad church" of trads. Taking the rhetoric of various men at face value, one would conclude that Bishop Fellay has returned to the hard right within that broad church. Others, such as Fr. Lorans, remain exactly what they were five years ago.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:45 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

John Lane wrote:

So I have no trouble at all in deciding which Bishop Fellay is the real one.

I do see where you're coming from, Mr. Lane, but frankly most people I know simply see Bishop Fellay as erecting a façade to disguise where he truly intends to take the Society. I tend to agree with those who see him as a typical politician (at least a politician in the U.S.) who simply changes his views to suit the immediate public relations needs and can even change depending upon what audience he is addressing at any given time. He seems to have made a fundamental change in order to accommodate Rome and, when that deal fell through made a fundamental change to his pre-"doctrinal discussions" beliefs. And he has not, at least as far as I or anyone I know is aware, explained why he made these changes or how these changes are not truly fundamental but only apparent.

The most recent example of this kind of change in fundamental concepts in the U.S. political arena was the presidential candidate Mitt Romney. This man claimed, early in his political career, to be "pro-life". In order to win the governorship of the State of Massachusetts he declared himself to be a supporter of abortion rights. After completing his term as governor and beginning his campaign for the U.S. presidency and in order to appeal to the national Republican Party constituency, he again declared his fundamental support of the "pro-life" agenda. (I put "pro-life" in quotes because, as a political issue in the U.S., it has been greatly perverted. G.W. Bush was hailed as a "pro-life" Republican who expanded the anti-life agenda in America, so the label means very little to those who are not simply partisans.)

Partisan Republicans accepted these changes as simply the requirements of a politician who must take certain positions in order to get enough votes from a constituency to be elected though many people saw this as a cynical attempt to fool them. While Bishop Fellay obviously does not need to garner votes, he does need to ensure that he has the financial means to maintain and expand the Society and it seems that there are numerous people (who now call themselves "the Resistance") who believe that Bishop Fellay has demonstrated the capacity to sell out on fundamental issues in the future if he believes it becomes expedient to do so (again?).

I think that such vacillation on doctrinal issues is unacceptable in a Catholic leader. I, for one, do have trouble deciding which Bishop Fellay is the real one.

Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:28 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

As for "the Resistance", I wonder if there is any possibility of reconciliation. Even if they were to welcome Bishop Fellay's latest letter, what would they have to do in order to be reconciled? Bishop Williamson would, I am sure, have to agree never to speak to anyone or write anything for the remainder of his days. What would others have to do? I don't know. The doctrinal differences between the restored Bishop Fellay and the Resistance is, as far as I can tell, zero. But now there is a lack of trust. The Resistance doesn't trust Bishop Fellay not to make the same mistake and Bishop Fellay doesn't trust the Resistance never to publicly disparage him.

It seems that as long as Bishop Fellay is the Superior General, reconciliation is impossible. Perhaps the SSPX could learn a lesson from the Great Western Schism on how to resolve such a problem.

Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:28 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

TKGS wrote:

frankly most people I know simply see Bishop Fellay as erecting a façade to disguise where he truly intends to take the Society.

And I would ask, what data do they have on which to base their judgement? And the answer in every case I have discussed it with, is that they have never met the man, do not know him at all, but they have read lots of "Resistance" materials, all of which proceed on the assumption, sometimes scandalously explicit, and sometimes satanically subtle, that this lifelong traditional Catholic and longstanding traditional Catholic priest and bishop, is a LIAR. This is not merely absurd, but actually immoral to believe (and a fortiori to repeat) without absolute proof.

And I know whence that notion comes, having heard it several times with my own ears from the very source, over the telephone. I give it no credence at all. I can't blame others for believing what seems by the very volume and frequency of the smoke puffs to indicate true fire. But I've seen behind the curtain, TKGS, and there's a smoke-machine there.

TKGS wrote:

I tend to agree with those who see him as a typical politician (at least a politician in the U.S.)

One of the most obviously political characters I have ever met, and I've met a lot of professional politicians, as well as a fair slab of amateur ones in business circles, is Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay, on the other hand, is naive and simple. Yet people can be found, amazingly not in small numbers, who take Bishop Williamson's verbal outrages to indicate candour, and Bishop Fellay's discretion and modesty to indicate guile. Frankly, I think this indicates that many people have no experience of men at all. The same people probably think that David Irving is a conservative, or that John Henry Newman was humble. Heck, maybe they think Robin Williams is happy. Who knows what fantastical notions such people could maintain?

TKGS wrote:

He seems to have made a fundamental change in order to accommodate Rome and, when that deal fell through made a fundamental change to his pre-"doctrinal discussions" beliefs.

To do justice to what happened, and what the texts mean, you need to grasp that there has been no change in what the man thinks in terms of doctrine, only a change in what he was prepared to sign. That is, he felt that the text of preamble was compatible with what he has written in the letter above. Yes, I agree that he is mistaken in this, but his mistake is not a change of doctrine, it's a mistake about how the same doctrine might be expressed using different wording.

TKGS wrote:

And he has not, at least as far as I or anyone I know is aware, explained why he made these changes or how these changes are not truly fundamental but only apparent.

Well, he hasn't explained the Preamble in any detail, if that's what you mean, but it's only just been published. But I read a recent letter from an otherwise honorable priest who repeated the calumny, which originated with a Novus "bishop", that Bishop Fellay had said that if Archbishop Lefebvre had witnessed a conservative Novus Ordo Missae he'd not have reacted against the New Mass as he did. This was a lie, and Bishop Fellay has denied it, and yet the lie gets repeated as if it were unquestioned. The thought that occurs to any fair-minded person who sees such a phenomenon, is that Bishop Fellay's enemies are unscrupulous about the truth, whilst they accuse him of being a liar. At some point not too far removed from that thought, one's patience evaporates.

TKGS wrote:

I think that such vacillation on doctrinal issues is unacceptable in a Catholic leader.

I agree, vacillation on doctrinal issues is undesirable in a Catholic leader. So Bishop Fellay went too far in conceding some wording to the enemy. TKGS, and anybody else who desires to understand what actually happened last year, should read this, very slowly and thoughtfully: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... donnet.htm

That was the dry run for what we witnessed nearly a quarter of a century later. Let those who condemn Bishop Fellay also condemn Archbishop Lefebvre. Then we may recognise their consistency of principle. Until then, they appear to be engaged in that most offensive and really revolting kind of special pleading - the kind by which only a chosen target is convicted, whilst everybody else gets absolved freely. Frankly, I'm not convinced they'd absolve Archbishop Lefebvre, as they do, if he weren't such a useful Big Name with which to whack Bishop Fellay...

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:24 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

TKGS wrote:

As for "the Resistance", I wonder if there is any possibility of reconciliation. Even if they were to welcome Bishop Fellay's latest letter, what would they have to do in order to be reconciled?

They do not wish to be reconciled.

Tell me, what sanction has Bishop Fellay applied to any priest, and for what offence?

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:27 pm

bernadette

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:06 pmPosts: 4

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

John Lane...I didn't think it possible to be a sede and support +Fellay at the same time. Two years ago, there was a sede scourging going on in the SSPX chapels of the US...don't tell me otherwise, I sat there and listened to it with my own ears. If I hadn't been so shocked, and taken off guard, I'd of walked out at the time.

Fri May 17, 2013 3:59 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

bernadette wrote:

John Lane...I didn't think it possible to be a sede and support +Fellay at the same time.

I have great respect and affection for the man. I believe that I understand him. I think that most of those attacking him don't know him and those that do are lacking some fundamental virtues (e.g. justice, charity...).

But have you even thought about what you've done here? TKGS wrote, "As for 'the Resistance', I wonder if there is any possibility of reconciliation. Even if they were to welcome Bishop Fellay's latest letter, what would they have to do in order to be reconciled?" and I replied,

Quote:

They do not wish to be reconciled.

Tell me, what sanction has Bishop Fellay applied to any priest, and for what offence?

You now add, "I didn't think it possible to be a sede and support +Fellay at the same time," as if there were no specific question on the table. Do you really believe that as a sedevacantist I cannot consistently do justice to Bishop Fellay? And if you think this, then why? The priests that constitute "the Resistance" are not sedevacantists either. Yes, I know many knuckle-headed sedes are cheering for "the Resistance" but the only logic I can see in that is that they are motivated not by principle but by some kind of hatred of the SSPX. "Ah, you guys hate the SSPX too. Hey, that makes us friends!" Moronic.

bernadette wrote:

Two years ago, there was a sede scourging going on in the SSPX chapels of the US...don't tell me otherwise, I sat there and listened to it with my own ears. If I hadn't been so shocked, and taken off guard, I'd of walked out at the time.

I don't doubt that in your chapel, perhaps in some other chapels, there was anti-sede rhetoric, at some point. Are you claiming that I should not insist on the truth about Bishop Fellay unless he stops all of his priests from ever saying things that offend me?

But even to discuss cases of anti-sede rhetoric we'd have to start defining things, beginning with whether the rhetoric was directed at all sedevacantists, or at some anti-SSPX ones (you know, like idiots who accuse the SSPX of promoting blasphemy and heresy merely because they do not form the judgement that the See is vacant), or perhaps only at sedevacantism itself (i.e. principles, not persons), and if the latter, what the rhetorician had in mind when he was attacking "sedevacantism". For example, the book "Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem," is actually aimed at the Guerardian theory (Cassiciacum) and I think it's an excellent book in many respects. No, I'm not suggesting that your priest was only attacking Guerardianism, I'm making a broader point: be precise. Another example: I know a young priest who hates "sedevacantism". His family used to be SSPX, went sede, and then stopped going to mass. You know, the all too common path that Fr. Cekada preaches in season and out of season. The young man went to the SSPX seminary and eventually was ordained. The only member of his family to attend his ordination was his non-Catholic father. He worries about what will become of his many siblings under the circumstances they now live due to his mother's imprudence and ignorance. This young priest is hardly open to a discussion about whether Bergoglio's claim is sound or not, for obvious reasons. His mind is closed. Do you blame him? I don't. By the way, the "sedes" who got to his mother are the Dimonds. I'm against them too, totally. How about you?

One final fact for you to ponder. I recently met with a sede priest I had not seen for quite a number of years. We were chatting about a few things and New Zealand came up. I mentioned that there is a sede family there which sends me via email everything that they get against the SSPX. This is a family, well known around the Web, who were “kicked out” of the SSPX chapel at Wanganui. Here’s the story, in case you don’t recall it: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=895 Take careful note of how it was presented at the time, and I emphasise, it was taken as evidence of anti-sede injustice on the part of the SSPX. People on this very forum were very aggressive against the SSPX over this case. Anyway, this sede priest I was chatting with a couple of weeks ago said that he knows them, and added, “I told them not them not to come to my masses.” I was, as you can imagine, a little surprised, and I asked why, and it turns out that in his judgement they are troublemakers.

Here’s a question for people to ponder: Which is the cause, and which the effect? A. The troublemaking attitude, or B. the sedevacantism. Obviously it isn’t “B” or the sede priest wouldn’t have kicked them out as well.

OK, another question. Do you think that Fr. Laisney’s opinion of sedevacantists and sedevacantism was raised, or lowered, by his experience at Wanganui?

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 17, 2013 7:23 am

bernadette

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:06 pmPosts: 4

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

John Lane wrote:

bernadette wrote:

John Lane...I didn't think it possible to be a sede and support +Fellay at the same time.

I have great respect and affection for the man. I believe that I understand him. I think that most of those attacking him don't know him and those that do are lacking some fundamental virtues (e.g. justice, charity...).

But have you even thought about what you've done here? TKGS wrote, "As for 'the Resistance', I wonder if there is any possibility of reconciliation. Even if they were to welcome Bishop Fellay's latest letter, what would they have to do in order to be reconciled?" and I replied,

Quote:

They do not wish to be reconciled.

Tell me, what sanction has Bishop Fellay applied to any priest, and for what offence?

You now add, "I didn't think it possible to be a sede and support +Fellay at the same time," as if there were no specific question on the table. Do you really believe that as a sedevacantist I cannot consistently do justice to Bishop Fellay? And if you think this, then why? The priests that constitute "the Resistance" are not sedevacantists either. Yes, I know many knuckle-headed sedes are cheering for "the Resistance" but the only logic I can see in that is that they are motivated not by principle but by some kind of hatred of the SSPX. "Ah, you guys hate the SSPX too. Hey, that makes us friends!" Moronic.

bernadette wrote:

Two years ago, there was a sede scourging going on in the SSPX chapels of the US...don't tell me otherwise, I sat there and listened to it with my own ears. If I hadn't been so shocked, and taken off guard, I'd of walked out at the time.

I don't doubt that in your chapel, perhaps in some other chapels, there was anti-sede rhetoric, at some point. Are you claiming that I should not insist on the truth about Bishop Fellay unless he stops all of his priests from ever saying things that offend me?

But even to discuss cases of anti-sede rhetoric we'd have to start defining things, beginning with whether the rhetoric was directed at all sedevacantists, or at some anti-SSPX ones (you know, like idiots who accuse the SSPX of promoting blasphemy and heresy merely because they do not form the judgement that the See is vacant), or perhaps only at sedevacantism itself (i.e. principles, not persons), and if the latter, what the rhetorician had in mind when he was attacking "sedevacantism". For example, the book "Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem," is actually aimed at the Guerardian theory (Cassiciacum) and I think it's an excellent book in many respects. No, I'm not suggesting that your priest was only attacking Guerardianism, I'm making a broader point: be precise. Another example: I know a young priest who hates "sedevacantism". His family used to be SSPX, went sede, and then stopped going to mass. You know, the all too common path that Fr. Cekada preaches in season and out of season. The young man went to the SSPX seminary and eventually was ordained. The only member of his family to attend his ordination was his non-Catholic father. He worries about what will become of his many siblings under the circumstances they now live due to his mother's imprudence and ignorance. This young priest is hardly open to a discussion about whether Bergoglio's claim is sound or not, for obvious reasons. His mind is closed. Do you blame him? I don't. By the way, the "sedes" who got to his mother are the Dimonds. I'm against them too, totally. How about you?

One final fact for you to ponder. I recently met with a sede priest I had not seen for quite a number of years. We were chatting about a few things and New Zealand came up. I mentioned that there is a sede family there which sends me via email everything that they get against the SSPX. This is a family, well known around the Web, who were “kicked out” of the SSPX chapel at Wanganui. Here’s the story, in case you don’t recall it: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=895 Take careful note of how it was presented at the time, and I emphasise, it was taken as evidence of anti-sede injustice on the part of the SSPX. People on this very forum were very aggressive against the SSPX over this case. Anyway, this sede priest I was chatting with a couple of weeks ago said that he knows them, and added, “I told them not them not to come to my masses.” I was, as you can imagine, a little surprised, and I asked why, and it turns out that in his judgement they are troublemakers.

Here’s a question for people to ponder: Which is the cause, and which the effect? A. The troublemaking attitude, or B. the sedevacantism. Obviously it isn’t “B” or the sede priest wouldn’t have kicked them out as well.

OK, another question. Do you think that Fr. Laisney’s opinion of sedevacantists and sedevacantism was raised, or lowered, by his experience at Wanganui?

John, because you have great affection for +Fellay and because you seem to think that you understand him, does not a good excuse make. His actions against +Williamson, his affiliation with Krah, his own lack of charity and other virtues by causing disruption and rebellion within the SSPX, his attempt to reconcile with Rome regardless of the good of the Society and the priests who expressed concern and disagreement, in fact, his actions altogether combined with a dictatorship-like term of 24 years as SG cannot be swept under the rug and ignored because of your own fanciful friendship. +Fellay should be held accountable for his actions.

+Williamson did not wish to be expelled, and considers himself SSPX to this day. He has not affiliated himself in any formal manner to the "resistance"...not that I'm aware of...a 'loose association' of priests is how he describes it. So I do not believe you are correct when you say "they don't want to be reconciled"....certainly, there are some that would and others that would not.

You ask: Do you really believe that as a sedevacantist I cannot consistently do justice to Bishop Fellay? And if you think this, then why?

No, I don't think that...but since I am not a sedevacantist, I have a hard time understanding your position. I'm SSPX, John, and I don't like the unfair treatment and abandonment of +Williamson, nor do I like the secrecy, duplicity, cover ups and political maneuverings of Menzingen....there is no transparency and no accountability...there are pretensions and changed accounts and faux-innocent stories by the SG that are difficult to swallow.

You ask: Tell me, what sanction has Bishop Fellay applied to any priest, and for what offence?

Seriously? Gag orders, shuffling of priest to areas far away such as +Tissier to Chicago, no apparent desire to discuss and persuade priests to remain in the Society...no apparent attempt to meet half way...sorry, this is not good Catholic action...it is pride.

You say: Yes, I know many knuckle-headed sedes are cheering for "the Resistance" but the only logic I can see in that is that they are motivated not by principle but by some kind of hatred of the SSPX. "Ah, you guys hate the SSPX too. Hey, that makes us friends!" Moronic.

I know some knuckle headed sedes too. What is "moronic" is believing that it is simply black and white..there are many SSPX faithful who do not like what has happened, who do not like the subtle changes, who do not like the treatment of +Williamson and the expelled priests, who do not like the political rosary crusades and the other tactics used but who really have no other choice but to remain...and when has it become charitable to boot people out of chapels? When has that become 'Catholic'?

You say: Are you claiming that I should not insist on the truth about Bishop Fellay unless he stops all of his priests from ever saying things that offend me?

I'm claiming that sermons such as the one I mentioned come from the top and are only permitted if +Fellay and co. says so...don't try to tell me otherwise.

You ask: By the way, the "sedes" who got to his mother are the Dimonds. I'm against them too, totally. How about you?

I'm totally against the Dimonds....what sort of a question is that, anyway? Do you think I am some sort of idiotic sede who jumps on the ridiculous and illogical bandwagon of fanatical and dangerous characters? I don't trust anyone, not Fr. Cekada, not the Dimonds, not Fr. moderator, not the current Menzingen regime, and not you.

As to your Wanganui story...I don't think it is possible to be a holy Catholic priest and ask someone not to come to mass...I just don't. I've never heard of anything such as this EVER, not EVER occurring in the Novus Ordo...I've heard of faithful leaving parishes of their own accord because they don't get along with the priest or pastor, but not EVER in my life have I heard of a Catholic priest in any parish anywhere in the world, telling faithful NOT to come to mass....you?

Fri May 17, 2013 2:25 pm

Katie

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 amPosts: 194

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

bernadette wrote:

Seriously? Gag orders, shuffling of priest to areas far away such as +Tissier to Chicago, no apparent desire to discuss and persuade priests to remain in the Society...no apparent attempt to meet half way...sorry, this is not good Catholic action...it is pride.

You cast charges of pride against a traditional Catholic bishop based partly on what you yourself say are “apparent” shortcomings? You also make accusations against Bishop Fellay for having lack of charity and other virtues. Is this the Bellarmine Forums? I don’t want to read any more of this. I come here for decent and rational Catholic discussion not more of the same old, same old tirades and accusations of sin against Bishop Fellay that are a dime-a-dozen on other so-called traditional Catholic forums out there.

I hope this doesn't offend you, Bernadette and that is certainly not my intention, but I find this kind of thing poisonous and definitely out of place anywhere but particularly on this forum. I am sorry that this has to be even mentioned but I am hoping you can nip this in the bud and we can look forward to an amicable discussion with statements that can be verified and keep any future accusations of sin strictly against ourselves and directed to own confessors!

_________________On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine

Fri May 17, 2013 3:28 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Bernadette,

This is horrible.

bernadette wrote:

John, because you have great affection for +Fellay and because you seem to think that you understand him, does not a good excuse make.

I was not aware I needed an excuse. For what would I need an excuse?

bernadette wrote:

His actions against +Williamson,

I agree, excessive patience, silence in the face of persistent, years-long, provocation, lack of action in dealing with the rebel member, can be criticised. Still, it's better not to do so. Excessive charity is hardly a terrible fault!

bernadette wrote:

his affiliation with Krah,

His "affiliation" with a traditional Catholic lawyer whose personal opinions you don't like is not scandalous in any way.

bernadette wrote:

his own lack of charity

From what I've seen so far, you in particular ought not to be accusing anybody of lacking charity!

bernadette wrote:

and other virtues

Unbelievable.

bernadette wrote:

by causing disruption and rebellion within the SSPX,

He didn't cause these things, and if one were to be so two-dimensional as to assign them to a single person as cause, the one name that would suggest itself would be Bishop Williamson.

bernadette wrote:

his attempt to reconcile with Rome regardless of the good of the Society and the priests who expressed concern and disagreement,

Fancy a Catholic being willing to entertain a proposal from the Roman Pontiff to eliminate unjust canonical irregularity!

bernadette wrote:

in fact, his actions altogether combined with a dictatorship-like term of 24 years as SG

He isn't anything like a dictator, in my opinion. Quite the contrary.

bernadette wrote:

cannot be swept under the rug and ignored

Lady, I have dealt with countless accusations against him in painstaking detail, on several forums, and in person with him. I can hardly be accused of sweeping anything under any rugs! No, you don't have anything serious to offer, you're just repeating loose and evil rhetoric from people who manifest a genius for seeing evil in everything.

bernadette wrote:

because of your own fanciful friendship.

What that means is anybody's guess, but it's hard to see any charity in it!

bernadette wrote:

+Fellay should be held accountable for his actions.

Weird. As if it's your job to hold anybody accountable, and as if abusing the man on Web forums is holding him accountable!

bernadette wrote:

+Williamson did not wish to be expelled, and considers himself SSPX to this day.

Objectively, he isn't SSPX, he's ex-SSPX. And objectively, that was his choice.

bernadette wrote:

He has not affiliated himself in any formal manner to the "resistance"...not that I'm aware of...a 'loose association' of priests is how he describes it. So I do not believe you are correct when you say "they don't want to be reconciled"....certainly, there are some that would and others that would not.

Name names, Bernadette. I spoke at length to Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko, and to Bishop Williamson, and none of them wishes to be reconciled. Nor would it be difficult for any of them to achieve it if it were what they truly wanted.

bernadette wrote:

You ask: Do you really believe that as a sedevacantist I cannot consistently do justice to Bishop Fellay? And if you think this, then why?

No, I don't think that...but since I am not a sedevacantist, I have a hard time understanding your position.

My position amounts to trying to be just to all. I don't agree with Bishop Fellay on some things. Some of those things are important. That doesn't make me desire to believe evil of him, and it certainly doesn't justify abandoning the most fundamental Christian virtues when considering his words and actions!

bernadette wrote:

I'm SSPX, John, and I don't like the unfair treatment and abandonment of +Williamson,

That's your opinion, and if you could recognise that fact, you'd be a long way down the path to being much more just to Bishop Fellay.

bernadette wrote:

nor do I like the secrecy, duplicity, cover ups and political maneuverings of Menzingen....there is no transparency and no accountability...there are pretensions and changed accounts and faux-innocent stories by the SG that are difficult to swallow.

The secrecy is manifestly necessary and a commonplace for leaders at any level. The rest of your comments are hot air, I'm sorry. Empty rhetoric.

bernadette wrote:

You ask: Tell me, what sanction has Bishop Fellay applied to any priest, and for what offence?

Seriously? Gag orders,

Yes, seriously. Priests were told not to touch the issue of relations with "Rome" while those relations were at a delicate stage - that is, for a few months. That's nothing worthy of comment, let alone condemnation.

None of them has to be a member of the sedeplenist organisation called the SSPX. They can leave. Some have. No problem. The only real issue is the bitterness and lies that have arisen from the free choice of a few men to leave the SSPX.

bernadette wrote:

shuffling of priest to areas far away such as +Tissier to Chicago,

I really don't think he was shuffled off anywhere. The USA needed a bishop. Putting him in the USA was not going to obscure the man, quite the contrary, and Bishop Fellay obviously knew that. Some of these allegations against Bishop Fellay are not even plausible, let alone true!

bernadette wrote:

no apparent desire to discuss and persuade priests to remain in the Society...no apparent attempt to meet half way...

You know nothing.

bernadette wrote:

sorry, this is not good Catholic action...it is pride.

Don't accuse others of sin here. That's what IA and Cathinfo are for.

bernadette wrote:

What is "moronic" is believing that it is simply black and white..there are many SSPX faithful who do not like what has happened, who do not like the subtle changes, who do not like the treatment of +Williamson and the expelled priests, who do not like the political rosary crusades and the other tactics used but who really have no other choice but to remain...and when has it become charitable to boot people out of chapels? When has that become 'Catholic'?

You're the one making it black and white. As for "booting people out of chapels" every traditional priest decides who can and who cannot come to his chapel. And let me tell you, since you don't seem to know anything about it, none of them likes troublemakers and will warn them off very smartly!

bernadette wrote:

You say: Are you claiming that I should not insist on the truth about Bishop Fellay unless he stops all of his priests from ever saying things that offend me?

I'm claiming that sermons such as the one I mentioned come from the top and are only permitted if +Fellay and co. says so...don't try to tell me otherwise.

Don't misunderstand my intentions - I don't think that you're open to persuasion. I'm answering you for the benefit of others.

Yes, he permits anti-sede sermons. There are actually very few of them. But so what?

bernadette wrote:

You ask: By the way, the "sedes" who got to his mother are the Dimonds. I'm against them too, totally. How about you?

I'm totally against the Dimonds....what sort of a question is that, anyway? Do you think I am some sort of idiotic sede who jumps on the ridiculous and illogical bandwagon of fanatical and dangerous characters?

How would I know what your views are, especially when you are known for changing them! But the point of that story was to highlight why any given SSPX priest might be firmly anti-sede, seeing it as a natural precursor to a family abandoning the sacraments.

bernadette wrote:

I don't trust anyone,

Well, if that's true, it's sad. We all need to trust somebody.

bernadette wrote:

As to your Wanganui story...I don't think it is possible to be a holy Catholic priest and ask someone not to come to mass...I just don't. I've never heard of anything such as this EVER, not EVER occurring in the Novus Ordo...I've heard of faithful leaving parishes of their own accord because they don't get along with the priest or pastor, but not EVER in my life have I heard of a Catholic priest in any parish anywhere in the world, telling faithful NOT to come to mass....you?

These are not parishes, they are emergency chapels, entirely outside of the standard provisions of canon law. They are private property, and pretty much the only means our priests have of keeping order is to tell people they're not welcome. It's a problem, but it's not difficult to understand!

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 17, 2013 6:40 pm

Brendan

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 amPosts: 76

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

I must concur with Mr. Lane here. I read the traditio squawkbox regularly, which is what I suspect Bernadette here has been reading, but one must keep in mind that it's run by a certain "Fr." Morrison who has his own problems. Rev. Fellay is providing valid sacraments to people, and his biggest defects are his acceptance of NO orders as valid and his reluctance to declare the modernist heretics in Rome heretics. But, the SSPX of the Strict Observance also accepts NO orders, and in fact one of their founding members is a NO "priest". When dealing with the SSPX, one must investigate each priest as they come. Also, we must keep in mind that Rev. Williamson is basically a High Anglican bishop with valid orders who dispenses Catholic sacraments.

The idea that the SSPX as a whole is not a traditional Catholic group seems absurd to me.

Fri May 17, 2013 10:06 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Brendan wrote:

I must concur with Mr. Lane here. I read the traditio squawkbox regularly, which is what I suspect Bernadette here has been reading, but one must keep in mind that it's run by a certain "Fr." Morrison who has his own problems.

I confess to never reading it. I figure if Morrison ever happens across something actually true, the same information will be available elsewhere at the same time.

Brendan wrote:

When dealing with the SSPX, one must investigate each priest as they come.

And the same is true pretty much in every other case also. The exception is the CMRI. In this country our task is simplified by this information: http://sspx.com.au/priests.html I'm not sure if any other District has a similar page.

Brendan wrote:

Also, we must keep in mind that Rev. Williamson is basically a High Anglican bishop with valid orders who dispenses Catholic sacraments.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this point is, but it's wrong. He's a Catholic with some defective theological notions, like many trad clerics!

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri May 17, 2013 10:53 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Quote:

...shuffling of priest to areas far away such as +Tissier to Chicago...

Well, I'm not SSPX nor am I an SSPX faithful, though I do attend Masses of SSPX priests on occasion. This statement, one that I've read before, is one that completely baffles me. If one didn't know better, Bishop Tissier was shuffled off to the middle of nowhere, some little retirement hamlet by the lakeshore that is still a few years away from getting electrical power and flush toilets. Perhaps I am a little chauvinistic on this matter, but Chicago is hardly a "far away area". It is a transportation hub, and an important one, in America. From Chicago, Bishop Tissier can more easily travel to distant and remote SSPX chapels throughout the United States that he could from, say, anywhere in France or Switzerland.

While I am not comfortable in cities (I live hear a city of around 21,000 souls and feel crowded there!) few people would consider being transferred to Chicago to be a punishment.

Fri May 17, 2013 10:56 pm

Mithrandylan

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pmPosts: 48

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Brendan wrote:

I must concur with Mr. Lane here. I read the traditio squawkbox regularly, which is what I suspect Bernadette here has been reading, but one must keep in mind that it's run by a certain "Fr." Morrison who has his own problems. Rev. Fellay is providing valid sacraments to people, and his biggest defects are his acceptance of NO orders as valid and his reluctance to declare the modernist heretics in Rome heretics. But, the SSPX of the Strict Observance also accepts NO orders, and in fact one of their founding members is a NO "priest". When dealing with the SSPX, one must investigate each priest as they come. Also, we must keep in mind that Rev. Williamson is basically a High Anglican bishop with valid orders who dispenses Catholic sacraments.

The idea that the SSPX as a whole is not a traditional Catholic group seems absurd to me.

Assuming you speak of Fr Voigt, he was conditionally ordained.

Sat May 18, 2013 12:36 am

Brendan

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 amPosts: 76

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Mithrandylan wrote:

Brendan wrote:

I must concur with Mr. Lane here. I read the traditio squawkbox regularly, which is what I suspect Bernadette here has been reading, but one must keep in mind that it's run by a certain "Fr." Morrison who has his own problems. Rev. Fellay is providing valid sacraments to people, and his biggest defects are his acceptance of NO orders as valid and his reluctance to declare the modernist heretics in Rome heretics. But, the SSPX of the Strict Observance also accepts NO orders, and in fact one of their founding members is a NO "priest". When dealing with the SSPX, one must investigate each priest as they come. Also, we must keep in mind that Rev. Williamson is basically a High Anglican bishop with valid orders who dispenses Catholic sacraments.

The idea that the SSPX as a whole is not a traditional Catholic group seems absurd to me.

Assuming you speak of Fr Voigt, he was conditionally ordained.

Yes, I was speaking of him. If that is so, that is certainly good news!

Sat May 18, 2013 3:40 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Brendan wrote:

Mithrandylan wrote:

Assuming you speak of Fr Voigt, he was conditionally ordained.

Yes, I was speaking of him. If that is so, that is certainly good news!

I don't accept that it's true. The people claiming it will not provide the date, the ordaining bishop, and the names of any witnesses. This is therefore an occult event, and occult events are irrelevant in the public sphere.

Edit: Just did a google search and discovered that Sean Johnson is claiming that Bishop Williamson did it. So that's a name. Now we just need the basic details (place, date) and witnesses, and the event will be verifiable.

Btw, it's odd that Bishop Williamson did it, if that's true, since the last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, we discussed the new rite of Orders at some length, and he vehemently disagreed with my assertion that the new rite is of doubtful validity.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat May 18, 2013 4:13 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Quote:

Btw, it's odd that Bishop Williamson did it, if that's true, since the last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, we discussed the new rite of Orders at some length, and he vehemently disagreed with my assertion that the new rite is of doubtful validity.

Really? Wow, what a mess!

In any case it is true that the SSPX has softened his position on this. They are accepting the NO rite in principle and if there is some especial reason to doubt then they investigate it.

I`ve read and heard a story of Bp Fellay having a sort of multiple chat, that is a chat for many persons at the same time (I don´t know the name of that) after the Summorum was promulgated and among the "good" things Bp Fellay commented upon was that many NO priests will now have the possibility to say the traditional Mass, and when he was asked if they were priests, Bp Felly said "yes", as if he would have no doubt about its validity.

Edit: Just did a google search and discovered that Sean Johnson is claiming that Bishop Williamson did it. So that's a name. Now we just need the basic details (place, date) and witnesses, and the event will be verifiable.

Btw, it's odd that Bishop Williamson did it, if that's true, since the last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, we discussed the new rite of Orders at some length, and he vehemently disagreed with my assertion that the new rite is of doubtful validity.

Maybe he started to have second thoughts since his argument with you, if that's why he "conditionally" ordained Fr. Voigt. Another possibility is that Voigt himself has doubts about NO ordinations and asked Williamson to ordain him.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Quote:

Btw, it's odd that Bishop Williamson did it, if that's true, since the last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, we discussed the new rite of Orders at some length, and he vehemently disagreed with my assertion that the new rite is of doubtful validity.

Really? Wow, what a mess!

In any case it is true that the SSPX has softened his position on this. They are accepting the NO rite in principle and if there is some especial reason to doubt then they investigate it.

I`ve read and heard a story of Bp Fellay having a sort of multiple chat, that is a chat for many persons at the same time (I don´t know the name of that) after the Summorum was promulgated and among the "good" things Bp Fellay commented upon was that many NO priests will now have the possibility to say the traditional Mass, and when he was asked if they were priests, Bp Felly said "yes", as if he would have no doubt about its validity.

This is a horrendous problem, since the SSPX is recognizing unpriests as priests. Something else that's been bugging me: Do the SSPX bishops themselves use the novus ordo rite of ordination? If they don't, why don't they, if they think it's valid? Is it for the same reasons they don't say the novus ordo "mass", even though they think it's valid too?

Sat May 18, 2013 6:27 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Brendan wrote:

John Lane wrote:

Edit: Just did a google search and discovered that Sean Johnson is claiming that Bishop Williamson did it. So that's a name. Now we just need the basic details (place, date) and witnesses, and the event will be verifiable.

Btw, it's odd that Bishop Williamson did it, if that's true, since the last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, we discussed the new rite of Orders at some length, and he vehemently disagreed with my assertion that the new rite is of doubtful validity.

Another possibility is that Voigt himself has doubts about NO ordinations and asked Williamson to ordain him.

Well, but the problem subsists Brendan. If Bp Williamson has no doubts about its validity, then it is wrong, very wrong to ordain someone even "sub conditione".

Quote:

Do the SSPX bishops themselves use the novus ordo rite of ordination?

No, they never used it.

Quote:

If they don't, why don't they, if they think it's valid? Is it for the same reasons they don't say the novus ordo "mass", even though they think it's valid too?

Do they think the "new mass" is valid?

In any case, I don´t know why they would oppose the new rite if it is valid. I think it is a good question.

Edit: Just did a google search and discovered that Sean Johnson is claiming that Bishop Williamson did it. So that's a name. Now we just need the basic details (place, date) and witnesses, and the event will be verifiable.

Btw, it's odd that Bishop Williamson did it, if that's true, since the last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, we discussed the new rite of Orders at some length, and he vehemently disagreed with my assertion that the new rite is of doubtful validity.

Another possibility is that Voigt himself has doubts about NO ordinations and asked Williamson to ordain him.

Well, but the problem subsists Brendan. If Bp Williamson has no doubts about its validity, then it is wrong, very wrong to ordain someone even "sub conditione".

An after thought... I didn´t mean Bp Williamson acted wrongly, maybe he changed his mind or even if he admitted in principle the new rite, he may have regarded Fr. Voigt`s ordination as null or at least doubtful for some especial reason (if indeed Bp Williamson was the one who ordained him... which is quite possible imo).

In any case it is true that the SSPX has softened his position on this. They are accepting the NO rite in principle and if there is some especial reason to doubt then they investigate it.

Cristian, this is one of those matters that it is difficult to get to the bottom of. I really don't think the SSPX has softened position on this. The Fr. Phillip Stark case illustrates the fact - his case was parallel with that of Voigt and Peroni, the two current Novus-ordained problematical examples.

Tissier regards the new rite of Orders as doubtfully valid. Fellay and Williamson regard it as valid. The policy seems not to have changed - ordain if the bishop was a complete lunatic who did ...

I have no idea what comes next in that sentence. Archbishop Lefebvre used to "investigate" each case (he would chat with the priest and make a judgement in each case) and sometimes he conditionally ordained, and sometimes he didn't. But we don't have any data on what factors he took into account.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat May 18, 2013 7:12 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

(if indeed Bp Williamson was the one who ordained him... which is quite possible imo).

I agree, it is even probable, given that his friends are asserting it publicly and he isn't denying it. But it's still an occult event, and as such irrelevant to the problem.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat May 18, 2013 7:15 pm

bernadette

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:06 pmPosts: 4

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

TKGS wrote:

Quote:

...shuffling of priest to areas far away such as +Tissier to Chicago...

Well, I'm not SSPX nor am I an SSPX faithful, though I do attend Masses of SSPX priests on occasion. This statement, one that I've read before, is one that completely baffles me. If one didn't know better, Bishop Tissier was shuffled off to the middle of nowhere, some little retirement hamlet by the lakeshore that is still a few years away from getting electrical power and flush toilets. Perhaps I am a little chauvinistic on this matter, but Chicago is hardly a "far away area". It is a transportation hub, and an important one, in America. From Chicago, Bishop Tissier can more easily travel to distant and remote SSPX chapels throughout the United States that he could from, say, anywhere in France or Switzerland.

While I am not comfortable in cities (I live hear a city of around 21,000 souls and feel crowded there!) few people would consider being transferred to Chicago to be a punishment.

From Chicago, +Tissier can more easily travel to distant and remote SSPX chapels throughout the US than he could from Europe....and how many times since he has been sent to Chicago has he traveled to remote chapels? He hasn't. Furthermore, Chicago is a very cold place in the winter months especially for the tall, thin, and frail bishop...I've heard many times from Fr. Ward how cold it is...he grew up in Chicago, so he should know. Interesting point...Fr. Ward was transferred at the same time as +Tissier to Chicago...after being pstor sixteen years here at my chapel in Southern California. I have recently read that Fr. Ward steps in to give the sermons for +Tissier most of the time. Fr. Ward is a strict party line priest.

Last edited by bernadette on Sun May 19, 2013 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 19, 2013 1:46 am

bernadette

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:06 pmPosts: 4

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

bernadette wrote:

He has not affiliated himself in any formal manner to the "resistance"...not that I'm aware of...a 'loose association' of priests is how he describes it. So I do not believe you are correct when you say "they don't want to be reconciled"....certainly, there are some that would and others that would not.

John Lane's brilliant answer:

Name names, Bernadette. I spoke at length to Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko, and to Bishop Williamson, and none of them wishes to be reconciled. Nor would it be difficult for any of them to achieve it if it were what they truly wanted.

bernadette replies:

Seems you have spoken at length to just about everyone...!

Sun May 19, 2013 3:50 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Yes, it is true that Bishop Williamson did conditionally ordain Father Voigt about two months ago. I believe it took place in Kentucky.

Mon May 20, 2013 2:00 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

(if indeed Bp Williamson was the one who ordained him... which is quite possible imo).

I agree, it is even probable, given that his friends are asserting it publicly and he isn't denying it. But it's still an occult event, and as such irrelevant to the problem.

Hi John, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that Father Voigt, although ordained validly, still has NO tendencies?

Mon May 20, 2013 2:07 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Lance, what I mean is simply that the status of priest is a public thing and requires public evidence. (Marriage requires it too, for the same reason.) In the old days this was covered by the bishop in whose diocese the priest was incardinated (i.e. had his public status), and if he went elsewhere he'd carry a letter from his bishop as a kind of ecclesiastical passport. This claim, that this man is a priest (i.e. according to the traditional rites of the Church, applied by a true bishop) is unsupported by any public evidence at all. Just hearsay.

And the hearsay itself is so imprecise! If I say, "I read such-and-such in a book by St. Thomas" then that is entirely different from if I say, "S. Th. II-II, Q. 39, Art. 1". One can be checked, the other cannot. If a writer gave his references like that nobody would think he took his subject seriously. Now, the very fact that such an important matter is treated with such flippancy by the parties concerned is in itself cause for serious objection. It's as if they lack respect for the priesthood and only acted in order to settle a PR problem. I think the whole thing is scandalous.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon May 20, 2013 6:52 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

John Lane wrote:

Lance, what I mean is simply that the status of priest is a public thing and requires public evidence. (Marriage requires it too, for the same reason.) In the old days this was covered by the bishop in whose diocese the priest was incardinated (i.e. had his public status), and if he went elsewhere he'd carry a letter from his bishop as a kind of ecclesiastical passport. This claim, that this man is a priest (i.e. according to the traditional rites of the Church, applied by a true bishop) is unsupported by any public evidence at all. Just hearsay.

And the hearsay itself is so imprecise! If I say, "I read such-and-such in a book by St. Thomas" then that is entirely different from if I say, "S. Th. II-II, Q. 39, Art. 1". One can be checked, the other cannot. If a writer gave his references like that nobody would think he took his subject seriously. Now, the very fact that such an important matter is treated with such flippancy by the parties concerned is in itself cause for serious objection. It's as if they lack respect for the priesthood and only acted in order to settle a PR problem. I think the whole thing is scandalous.

I agree that it should have been more open and public however, there are priests who witnessed the ordination and I'm sure they would be willing to testify that the event took place. So, all we are left with is the scandal. To tell you the truth John, what I find more scandalous is the fact that when Father Voigt asked to be conditionally ordained by Bishop Fellay, he was refused and he still functioned for years as a priest with a doubt in his own mind.

Mon May 20, 2013 9:42 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

Well, let's just hope he didn't have any doubt himself, and he was just thinking of the faithful in asking for conditional ordination, many of whom do very reasonably have a doubt!

I must admit, this is the legitimately controverted subject upon which I have the least patience with those who disagree with us. Here we have a new sacramental rite from the authors of the New Mass, which New Mass we all absolutely reject as evil. People are prepared to trust the same criminals who gave us a mass that none of us would attend even if our very lives depended upon it, to have delivered a valid sacramental rite of Holy Orders! Why? What possible logic is there in that?

The only conceivable argument I can think of is that of serial pest Michael Davies, "the Church cannot give us invalid sacraments," with which obviously we all agree, except that we also hold, as all Catholics must, that the Church also cannot possibly give false and impious worship to God, which she would if she were responsible for the New Mass. Why is the Church off the hook for the impiety of the New Mass, and on the hook for the validity of the new sacramental rites? If anybody can get their heads around this, please let us know, because it's beyond me.

I can certainly understand why any individual (who believes himself an expert in sacramental theology) may decide, for himself alone, that he sees no problem with a new rite. Such an individual (who believes himself an expert in sacramental theology) would be forming a private judgement about the new rite, which is absolutely his right to do, since the Church has not done so (as, ex hypothesi, she cannot be considered to be responsible for the new rites if she is not responsible for the New Mass). But a private judgement cannot be deployed at the risk of others' souls. No man has the right to impose upon others his own judgement about such a grave matter. That would be simply unjust.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon May 20, 2013 11:43 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

TKGS wrote:

Quote:

...shuffling of priest to areas far away such as +Tissier to Chicago...

Well, I'm not SSPX nor am I an SSPX faithful, though I do attend Masses of SSPX priests on occasion. This statement, one that I've read before, is one that completely baffles me. If one didn't know better, Bishop Tissier was shuffled off to the middle of nowhere, some little retirement hamlet by the lakeshore that is still a few years away from getting electrical power and flush toilets. Perhaps I am a little chauvinistic on this matter, but Chicago is hardly a "far away area". It is a transportation hub, and an important one, in America. From Chicago, Bishop Tissier can more easily travel to distant and remote SSPX chapels throughout the United States that he could from, say, anywhere in France or Switzerland.

While I am not comfortable in cities (I live hear a city of around 21,000 souls and feel crowded there!) few people would consider being transferred to Chicago to be a punishment.

Well it actually is a punishment for +Tissier, whether it was intended or not. The weather is extremely cold there, and it has not been very favorable to his health. Just something to keep in mind, like I said, no conspiracy here just the objective observations from what I have heard some close friends say.

I certainly pray that they move him elsewhere, where it might be more suitable to his health. Sometimes us youngsters forget, that all of our Catholic sede/non-sede Bishop's are getting older. What is surprising to me, is how well +Williamson has been handling all of this.

Given his age, and the mental acuity that he still possesses it is remarkable! Not to insult the older folks, but it seems most people completely just atrophy mentally until they turn into vegetables. Not sure if its the diet, chemical's and God know's how many pills the older folks take in combo to help relieve them of every malady out there. I have much more respect for the Anglican Bishop, then the Econite head Bishop. Just my $0.03 cents.

I think the sooner he carries out a consecration the better, I am worried about his health and whether the resistance will have any future Bishop to tend to the needs of the faithful. For as is, the SSPX already should have more Bishop's worldwide. Travel is becoming harder and harder with all the internationalization of security protocol's. There should be a Bishop available from a driving distance away, a Bishop should never have to drive himself around too such far distances alone especially given their age. It is sad to see how badly they threw +Williamson under the bus. Despite, his imprudent remarks in Germany he served the SSPX faithfully for a long time. A priest actually told me this, but the whole insurance for the SSPX priest's is a bit short of thievery. Some of them have been there longer then 20 years, and then they get kicked out of nowhere and this particular priest had retirement (served 20 years) as a military chaplain in the U.S.A.F. he would have been completely reduced to utter poverty. This of course is a very serious problem everywhere not just necessarily with the SSPX. All of this of course is due to the modernist in Rome being in charge, and it makes it difficult to have some sort of decent care for our priest's.

Given everything I've read and heard from him, I don't think an episcopal consecration is even on the horizon. Somehow, I doubt that he will ever consecrate a bishop.

_________________Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States

Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:39 pm

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Bishop Fellay reaffirms opposition to Vatican II etc.

TKGS wrote:

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

I think the sooner he carries out a consecration the better...

Given everything I've read and heard from him, I don't think an episcopal consecration is even on the horizon. Somehow, I doubt that he will ever consecrate a bishop.

No there is already a set date that will happen. I forget when, but he has mentioned it in his EC (that is was soon) and Father Chazal has said it also in some of his sermon's. I just hope he makes it, and I hope he consecrates more than one candidate or maybe, consecrate another one at some other date, but not too far in the future. The faithful should have the sacraments of Confirmation without having to wait too long. Tradition has been growing at a steady rate, therefore the needs of the faithful should be met.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum